A Universal Rhythm Guides How We Speak: Global Analysis Reveals 1.6-second Units (phys.org)
- Reference: 0178849706
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/08/24/1920233/a-universal-rhythm-guides-how-we-speak-global-analysis-reveals-16-second-units
- Source link: https://phys.org/news/2025-08-universal-rhythm-global-analysis-reveals.html
[1]Phys.org explains :
> Have you ever noticed that a natural conversation flows like a dance — pauses, emphases, and turns arriving just in time? A new study has discovered that this isn't just intuition; there is a biological rhythm embedded in our speech...
>
> According to the study, led by Dr. Maya Inbar, alongside Professors Eitan Grossman and Ayelet N. Landau, human speech across the world pulses to the beat of what are called intonation units, short prosodic phrases that occur at a consistent rate of one every 1.6 seconds. The research analyzed over 650 recordings in 48 languages spanning every continent and 27 language families. Using a novel algorithm, the team was able to automatically identify intonation units in spontaneous speech, revealing that regardless of the language spoken, from English and Russian to endangered languages in remote regions, people naturally break their speech into these rhythmic chunks. "These findings suggest that the way we pace our speech isn't just a cultural artifact, it's deeply rooted in human cognition and biology," says Dr. Inbar.
>
> "We also show that the rhythm of intonation units is unrelated to faster rhythms in speech, such as the rhythm of syllables, and thus likely serves a different cognitive role...." Most intriguingly, the low-frequency rhythm they follow mirrors patterns in brain activity linked to memory, attention, and volitional action, illuminating the profound connection between how we speak and how we think.
The work is [2]published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .
[1] https://phys.org/news/2025-08-universal-rhythm-global-analysis-reveals.html
[2] https://pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2425166122
Chomsky (Score:2)
This is super cool, but I wouldn't think it gives Chomsky the win yet about there being an innate ability for language
Re: (Score:3)
Of course not. For one thing, even if some aspects of language are innate, others surely are not. Aspects of intonation could be innate without any of syntax, with which Chomsky is primarily concerned, being innate.
Re: (Score:2)
The ability of spoken language is clearly innate. Our brains have been structured for it on an evolutionary scale. If a child under about the age of 5 is around people speaking a given language, you cannot actually keep them from learning to understand it, and you have to be positively abusive to keep them from learning to speak it. This has been well established for a long time.
Re: (Score:1)
"Our brains have been structured for it on an evolutionary scale."
Yours isn't working too well.
Re: (Score:2)
> an innate ability for language
His theory is pretty good descriptively but there's a South American tribe that speaks in a way differently than what his insistence on specific biological structure supports.
The precept that language is innate vs. how language works being innate are probably different claims.
Academic linguists of the Expert Class type get super mad when people bring up that tribe.
IMO it's better to be a scientist than an acclaimed Expert.
Explains why Spanish sounds so rapid (Score:5, Interesting)
Most common English words are 1-2 syllables. Their Spanish equivalents are often 4-6 syllables. To get out the same amount of meaning, a Spanish speaker has to spit out a lot more syllables than an English speaker, making the language sound very fast-paced. But the amount of meaning expressed isn't any faster. This study seems to explain why.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you assume a meaning for "intonation unit" that fits your presumption.
Re: (Score:2)
Those who believe that language has a natural pace of intonation have no Indian co-workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Spanish speakers also don't all speak at the same rates. It's commonly noted that Spaniards themselves speak more rapidly than most other Spanish speakers, and that most Mexicans do as well (but not usually as quickly as most Spanish people.) The summary of this study seems to ignore that. ;) (I haven't read the study yet.)
How do we explain Shatner? (Score:1)
Does his biological clock have arrhythmia?
Re: (Score:3)
I am more interested in whether it's possible to overclock your speech.
Re: (Score:2)
> I am more interested in whether it's possible to overclock your speech.
I have to read some stuff to people on a regular basis. If it's clearly the umpteenth time they've heard it then I read it quickly. If it seems to be the first time, I go much more slowly. If they're in a hurry then I read it very quickly. I know my diction is still good (and therefore the same amount of information is being conveyed) because I regularly receive compliments on how I am able to read it very rapidly and still be understood. I also invite them ahead of time to let me know if I'm going too fast
Re: (Score:2)
He has clearly. Been. Vindicated .
Etash (Score:2)
The measurement is inaccurate. It's actually ~ 1.618 seconds.
Sounds like a simplification (Score:2)
An interesting idea but if you look at just English there is a significant difference in the speed it is spoken in different countries. It has been said that we in New Zealand speak English at the fastest rates, but there are other contenders. When I visit other English speaking countries I do notice it and make an effort to slow down to the local speed. That also helps with the accent difference. When speaking to people with English as a second language I really need to slow down a lot to be understood
Cognitive processing tokens? (Score:2)
Sounds like tokens to me. As TFA said, it's not syllables, it's larger units. Makes sense that our brains have a processing "clock cycle". And that would suggest we might process chunks of language in time with that cycle.
Pure, IANA___ speculation.
Re: What is this faggy shit? (Score:2)
What if their data was overwhelmingly poisoned by AI slop?